Subject: Re: As usual
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 03:37:10 -0800


of limited mindedness, 
the incorporeal presence, 

of each head, heart and limb,
small piggy limb, & members;

Thomas, in analogy to man's body,
politic, lumpen-proletariat,
too slaving, 

wise counsel melts weakness, 
strengthens through revolution, 

the Broad Arrow policy, 
in New England; 
this in the America's, 
a revolution began, 
for no country man 
could hew the oak, 
unless the King first spoke
in favour of it, 
it was a time of leaping salmon, 
and boats filled with cod; 
no more, those days have vanished, 
the timber has been parcelled out, 
and felled.  

Instead the warring nations 
have resorted to looting, and 
hired guns, with the vote; 
they brought conscription, 
and taxes to build munitions
against the young men's wishes,
later, young men lonesome for a job 
and money, not for land, 
not for glory, but 
for honest pay. 

Jouvenel, de, Bertrand, a militiamen,
On Power, after years of careful
reading and thinking, said once, 
conscription was brought into 
being with the first democracies, 
by governments
voted in by free men and women. 

Perhaps children should vote too. 
Evidence enough? Or is the Italian 
scene better, participatory, non-majority 
rule? Yes I think it is, but lower the voting
age. Let these kids vote to ban the draft, 
and let us pay a conscience tax for peace, 
they too can "take their swords, and beat them 
into plows and pruning hooks" and write 
of inner change of natural law. 

"A law, considered as an instrument of 
social discipline, has no more validity
than force, when it is itself only the 
expression of force; the truth is that
law itself has its laws which govern it, 
and is, if it goes beyond them, of no 
more worth than the dangers which it 
its purpose to avert...." Ch. Beudant_ 
In: Le Droits Individuel et L'Etat_ pp.12-13. 

"Every positive law, from whatever law-giver 
may come, can be examined as to its moral 
implications, and consequently as to its moral
authority of the natural law. The laws of 
man that are in direct contradiction to the 
natural law bear an initial defect, that no 
violent means, no outward display of power,
can remedy. By this standard must we judge 
the principle: "What is of utility to the people 
is right." A right meaning may be given to this
sentence if it is understood as expressing that 
what is morally illicit can never serve the true
interests of the people. But even ancient paganism
recognized that the sentence, to be perfectly
accurate, should read: "Never is anything useful,
if it is not at the same time morally good. And not 
because it is useful is it morally good, but, because
it is morally good, it is also useful." Cicero, De Officiis, III,
30.

"Ancient law was based on the principle of the 
subjective will. According to this principle the 
individual is himself the foundation and the source
of his own laws: he is his own legislator. The
idea which lies at the root of ancient private law
is that of autonomy." Ihering, L'Esprit du droit romain, FR. ed., Vol. II,
p.147

The young must not be sheep, 
they should not be 'enframed' by powerful
agents as 'standing reserves',
stocks and flows or human resources or capital;
but individual sovereign nations;
he who commands the machine, 
also rocks the cradle of democracy, 
and nurtures future kings and queens, 
and president's elect and most
learn by example, not the reading
or Roman law, or pagan law, but 
earlier, imitating war they learned
from fathers or an elder brother, 
who were not imitating Christ.   

"enframing [Ge-stell] means the gathering 
together of that setting-upon which sets 
upon man, i.e., challenges him forth, to reveal 
the real, the mode of ordering, as standing-reserve."
Also "where Enframing reigns, there is 
danger in the highest sense." The Question
of Technology. Martin Heidegger. 

"If man is challenged [to exploit the energies of 
nature], ordered, to do this, then does
not man himself belong even more originally than
nature within the standing-reserve? The current 
talk about human resources, about the supply of
patients for a clinic, gives evidence of this." 
(page 299, Question Concerning Technology, In 
Basic Writings: Martin Heidegger. Edit. by Dave Ferrell
Krell. 





----------
> From: bob scheetz <rscheetz-AT-cboss.com>
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: As usual
> Date: Monday, January 25, 1999 11:39 PM
> 
> no wittgenstein, here, eh?
> 
> often wonder if we aren't working from different historiographies, tho?
> 
> what passes for the canonical conception and history re nazism,  really
only
> another bourgeois theodicy.
> 
> ww2 was merely the end of a protracted struggle
> btw britain and germany,
> starting with bismark,
> for bourgeois imperial hegemony.
> 
> in the event ww1 achieved the destruction of whig,
> wilhelmine, germany... her traditional ruling class.
> 
> then, the failure of weimar to emplace
> a viable programme (new deal) to meet
> the big wave crisis of the great depression,
> disqualified the bourgeois liberal class mandate.
> 
> next in succession would have come the proletariat.
> but as the international big bourgeois, godfathered by
> britain and US, had already taken care to eliminate
> the vanguard element, liebknecht, luxembourg, meyer,...
> by sponsoring freikorps death squads thru the decade of the 20's,
> power defaulted to the one-eyed man, the lumpen,
> led by the battle-hardened cadre, the freikorps cum nazis,
> and their iron cross first-class fuehrer.
> 
> and, the final stroke, the whole thing was turned to
> account to pay the price, a fraction of which was
> the holocaust, to defeat bolshevism.
> 
> pretty standard lenin
> 
> but, thence the pop notion of nazism
> is seen for a fetishized construct, bourgeois myth/history.
> historically determined and class contingent;
> the sociopathology, a truism: empowered lumpen equals barbarity;
> and over all, from beginning to end,...
> the providential genius of the entire historical production,
> international capital;  the real evil,
> with its underclass (predatory criminal) reflection,
> the lumpen
> ... not racism, militarism, totalitarianism,...
> 
> this pattern: big bourgeois patronizing lumpen barbarity
> to deal with its internal imperial security, is the
> essential structure of fascism...the US/pinochet
> episode replicated almost ubiquitously
> (of recent note, suharto, mobuto...even saddam hussein)
> a major component (the fascist component)
> of bourgeois imperial governance.
> 
> in the US mandarin complicity (cia/fbi/pentagon...
> more than cornball aspen institutes and renaissance week-ends,
> breaking bread with rockefellers, guggenheim grants, nobel prizes...)
> at the highest levels is so seeming unproblematical
> (chomsky proves the rule), heid's nazism loses all distinction
> 
> add to this the fact that any young man's (heid's) attempting to
> engage history within the vortex of revolutionary times
> is a thing so frought with contingency,
> levels of ambiguity, excruciating ethical nuances,
> ...as makes most outcomes humanly disasterous ...
> and as makes near impossible the task of sorting
> motive from rationalization, prejudice from reasoned analysis,
> illusion from fact,...
> the rendering a honest retrospective.
> 
> as a rule the winners propagate triumphalist myth,
> and force upon the losers the abject posture
> of confession and supplication.
> so one could even argue that heid's silence here
> was a kinda heroic integrity.
> 
> ultimately, of course, heid and b&t are somehow
> a product, a "thrown-ness," of these same
> material historical determinants.
> leaving one less of a problem with his fascism
> than his personal (especially husserl, eh) betrayals.
> his failure to make good on them accounts.
> 
> bob
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> To: Rscheetz <Rscheetz>
> Date: Monday, January 25, 1999 6:18 AM
> Subject: As usual
> 
> 
> >
> >Was Plato a fascist?
> >
> >For many reasons,  I genuinuely do not know; just two of those reasons
> >are that I don't know what a fascism is, nor whether Plato's vision in
> >theRepublik of the tripartite State would qualify as such.
> >However, let's suppose his vision is fascistic.
> >In P's case, there is an immediate (almost deductive) relation between
> >his analysis of the kind of creature that we are, namely, his tripartite
> >view of the Soul, and his tripartite view of the State.
> >P's metaphysics can be 'blamed' for his fascism.
> >
> >Is the same true of H? Is there such an immediate relation between his
> >Dasein-construal of the kind of creature that we are and his membership
> >to NS -- this membership interpreted as H's confirmation that NS is
> >political arrangement proper for creatures like ourselves? (I would
> >prefer to ignore the so-called 'argment' of Farias).
> >
> >Where is the argument for this? Or are these 'allegations' about the
> >relation merely cases of the informal fallacy of 'guilt by association'?
> >
> >Could the 'relation', if you will, have been more in tune with that
> >between Hume's skeptical doubts (entertained inside the study) and his
> >enjoyment of Backgammon (entertained outside his study).
> >
> >On the other hand, perhaps, these questions are wildly naive, romantic,
> >idealistic, ....?
> >jim
> >
> >PS. Jan, thanks much for the post. I'm reading it now and will get back
to
> you.
> >
> >
> >     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---